Re: [Taps] adopting draft-welzl-taps-transports

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Thu, 29 October 2015 07:40 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 818471A024C for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q0VYSeSSQqbD for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out5.uio.no (mail-out5.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E3B61A8849 for <taps@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 00:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx1.uio.no ([129.240.10.29]) by mail-out5.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1Zrhol-0007Sg-6m; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 08:40:15 +0100
Received: from 173.179.249.62.customer.cdi.no ([62.249.179.173] helo=[192.168.0.101]) by mail-mx1.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1Zrhok-0006Tr-Km; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 08:40:15 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <CAD62q9V5w+cwE_SS3KAAmj-CFzWCYux9TirjEgcFHYc17Pfo6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 08:40:13 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C2C5A36B-550F-4B1D-AEE0-3555E55AD87A@ifi.uio.no>
References: <CAD62q9V5w+cwE_SS3KAAmj-CFzWCYux9TirjEgcFHYc17Pfo6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 16 msgs/h 6 sum rcpts/h 21 sum msgs/h 9 total rcpts 34486 max rcpts/h 54 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 3938B559D75A0E0363D16BA13C92B361F99BF2A4
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: UIO-GREYLIST remote_host: 62.249.179.173 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 1 bait 0 mail/h: 6 total 2016 max/h 14 blacklist 0 greylist 1 ratelimit 0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/zSLr6KMNf4-tL7KpIbHzKymfTeo>
Cc: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>, "<naeemk@ifi.uio.no> Khademi" <naeemk@ifi.uio.no>, "taps@ietf.org" <taps@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Taps] adopting draft-welzl-taps-transports
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Transport Services <taps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/taps/>
List-Post: <mailto:taps@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 07:40:19 -0000

So I did say this before, but to get the ball rolling:

> On 28. okt. 2015, at 15.10, Aaron Falk <aaron.falk@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I've not heard any objections to work on this document and several proposals for why it would help docs 2 & 3 (as well as the implementations based on 3).  
> 
> 1. Should TAPS adopt draft-welzl-taps-transports as a working group deliverable? 
> 
> 2. To some folks it sounds as though this doc is a pre-requisite to doc 2.  Do folks agree?  Can we start on doc 2 in parallel or should we wait?

I do think that doc 2 should be based on draft-welzl-taps-transports, i.e. I think we should wait for a bit. We could get started before draft-welzl-taps-transports is completely finished, but I think we should give it at least 1-2 more iterations before starting to narrow it down in doc 2. 

Cheers,
Michael